2004 Election Should be Close, but Bush May Have a Historical Edge, Says UB Expert on Presidential Campaigns

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Circumstances leading up to the 2004 presidential election seem to point to another tightly contested race, though probably not the nail-biter of 2000, predicts a University at Buffalo political scientist who studies U.S. presidential campaigns.

Although there will be about as many Republicans as Democrats registered to vote next year, President Bush's status as the incumbent may be the difference, says James E. Campbell, professor of political science in the UB College of Arts and Sciences and author of "The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote."

In the 20th century only one president -- Jimmy Carter -- lost a bid for reelection after his party had been in office for just one term, Campbell says.

"Incumbents do lose elections from time to time, but it's extremely uncommon for an incumbent whose party has been in office for only one term to lose," he notes.

George Bush, the elder, lost the presidency after one term in office, but Republican president Ronald Reagan had been in office for two terms prior to Bush's presidency, Campbell notes.

Strong party unity typically is the most important factor in the reelection success of the one-term president, Campbell points out. In contrast, party dissention historically has spelled doom for candidates whose party is trying to regain the White House after being out of office for one term.

"The party in office usually doesn't start taking its power for granted until it's been in office for two terms," Campbell explains. "After eight years in power, you begin to see more infighting and the party begins to splinter.

"On the other hand, the party out of office usually doesn't circle the wagons and pull together until after two terms out of office," he adds. "That's when the party leaders begin to say 'Okay, let's settle our differences and begin to build some unity.'"

Campbell sees those same historical tendencies at work in 2004. The depth of the Democratic field and the contentiousness of the campaign trail could make it very difficult for one candidate to emerge with enough early party support to defeat Bush, he says.

"If candidates don't have overwhelming support at or before the convention they have an extremely difficult time winning elections," Campbell says.

As an incumbent whose party has been in office for only one term, Bush has another advantage over Democratic candidates, Campbell notes. Bush can simultaneously play up two "great themes" that are particularly effective campaign messages: change and stability.

"Bush's presidency is still fresh enough that he can say he's still working on the things he started early on," Campbell says, "and he can say he needs to stay in office to build upon the progress he's already made."

Campbell expects the Democratic field of 10 candidates to shrink to five or six by the time the Iowa Caucus rolls around in January.

"You might see one or two of the final group drop out after the first series of primaries," Campbell predicts. "After that we're going to have a real race for the Democratic nomination. It's not going to be a slam dunk for anyone, which should give Bush a big advantage going into the general election."

Below, Campbell assesses the chances of the seven leading contenders for the Democratic nomination:

Wesley Clark -- "General Clark is defying the conventional wisdom by getting such a late start in the campaign. However, the initial polls put him right in among Gephardt, Dean, Kerry and Lieberman," Campbell says. "His strong initial showing may indicate that there is room for a liberal-centrist in the mix, but it also may signal how fluid things are in the Democratic contest."

Howard Dean -- "This is certainly the surprise candidate of the year. Dean's liberal ideals appear to be resonating with the more-radical crowd in the party," Campbell says. "If Dean loses the nomination, it could put the winner in an awkward position because he'll either have to become more liberal to consolidate the party, or he'll have to stand up against the party liberals, which creates dissention."

John Edwards -- "This is the campaign that many expected might take off, but has just not found any traction to this point," Campbell says. "Most early handicapping figured that Edwards would be in a top tier of four candidates, but his poll numbers continue to be weak, indicating that he has not caught on. Democrats need to dig into Republican strength in Southern states and Edwards was thought to give them that possibility, but it doesn't look that way now."

Dick Gephardt -- "Gephardt is closely tied to organized labor and could bring together the two wings of the party," Campbell says. "He could do reasonably well in the border states."

Bob Graham -- "Graham is a long shot," Campbell says. "He's not the most charismatic of politicians. He may be a more acceptable candidate for vice president than president."

John Kerry -- "After Gore decided not to run, Senator Kerry was the closest candidate to being the frontrunner for the nomination, but he appears now to be about even with several others," Campbell says. "Kerry is an articulate spokesman for liberal politics, but will have to battle Dean on the left and Clark in the center. Kerry's rather stiff, upper-class bearing also may prove a liability."

Joseph Lieberman -- "Lieberman is a strong contender for the nomination, but the religion issue is the great unknown," Campbell says. "The problems in the Middle East make it a touchy issue more than ever."